In yesterday’s daf, Bava Metzia 76b, we also encountered the word simta. For instance,
לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, כָּאן בְּסִימְטָא.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; here, where Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi states that a ship is acquired through passing, he is referring to a ship situated in the public domain. Since a ship in the public domain cannot be acquired through pulling, which must be performed in a domain that is in one’s possession, it is acquired through passing. By contrast, there, in the first baraita, the ship is situated in an alleyway [simta], which is not the public domain, as both parties have the right to keep their possessions there. A ship in this location must be acquired through pulling.
There’s an interesting analysis from a very old blogpost at Balashon (by David Curwin) about the word, which you can read here. Jastrow writes at length about it, because he discusses it in his Introduction, not just as a word entry.
The question at play is whether for words such as simta, we should look for a Greek or Latin etymology, or rather for a Semitic etymology. Here is what Jastrow writes in his introduction, as to why and where to prefer a Semitic etymology.
The etymological method pursued in this Dictionary requires a somewhat fuller explanation than is ordinarily embodied in a preface.
The Jewish literature here spoken of is specifically indigenous, in which respect it is unlike the Syriac literature contemporary with it, which is mainly Christian, and as such was influenced, not only in thought but also in language, by the Greek and Latin tongues of the religious teachers of a people itself not free from foreign admixtures. Foreign influences came to Jewish literature merely through the ordinary channel of international intercourse. It is for this reason, if for no other, that the Jewish literature of post-Biblical days down to the ninth century may be called original. Hence it is natural to expect that, in extending the horizon of thought, it also extended its vocabulary on its own basis, employing the elements contained in its own treasury.Starting from such premises, the investigator had to overhaul the laws regulating the derivation of words whose etymology or meaning is unknown from known Semitic roots; every word of strange appearance had to be examined on its merits both as to its meaning or meanings and as to its origin; the temptation offered by phonetic resemblances had to be resisted, and the laws of word-formation common to all other original languages as well as the environment in which a word appears had to be consulted before a conclusion could be reached. The foremost among these laws is that a word is imported into one language from another with the importation of the article it represents or of the idea it conveys. Unless these conditions of importation are apparent, the presumption should be in favor of the home market.
Take e.g. the word סימטא and its dialectic equivalent איסמטא, which means (a) a recess, an alley adjoining the market place to which the merchants retire for the transaction of business, also the trader’s stand under the colonnade, and (b) an abscess, a carbuncle. The Latin semita, which since Musafia has been adopted as the origin of simṭa, offers hardly more than an assonance of consonants: a footpath cannot, except by a great stretch, be forced into the meaning of a market stand; and what becomes of simṭa as abscess? But take the word as Semitic, and סמט, dialectically = 1שמט, offers itself readily, and as for the process of thought by which ‘recess’, ‘nook’, goes over into ‘abscess’ in medical language, we have a parallel in the Latin ‘abscessus.’ How much Latin medical nomenclature may have influenced the same association of ideas among the Jews is a theme of speculation for students of comparative philology or of the physiology of language.
It continues, and it worthwhile to keep reading there.
Musafia, as Balashon explains, is Rabbi Binyamin Mussafia (1606-1675), author of Musaf HaArukh, who:
The author made use of the Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum by Johannes Buxtorf (Basle, 1604) to show how many Talmudic words are derived from Greek and Latin.
Read more there.
(2) We should also take note of an interesting Tosafot, about Abaye and listing all instances of mareh makom hu lo. Thus, in Bava Batra 76b,
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אִי דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ ״לֵךְ חֲזֵק וּקְנִי״ – הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״לֵךְ מְשׁוֹךְ וּקְנֵי״;
Rav Ashi said: The Rabbis agree that it is possible to effect acquisition in the public domain through the act of passing. Therefore, if it is a case where the seller says to him: Go take possession and thereby effect acquisition, so too he can effect acquisition through the act of passing, and does not need to pull it. Here the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as we are dealing with a case where the seller says to him: Go pull and thereby effect acquisition of it.
מָר סָבַר: קְפִידָא, וּמָר סָבַר: מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם הוּא לוֹ.
Rav Ashi elaborates: One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that the seller is particular about the method by which the item is acquired, and therefore it can be acquired only through pulling. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that the seller is merely indicating the manner to him, i.e., he advises him to use this act of acquisition but he does not mind if the buyer prefers to perform a different act of acquisition.
Tosafot note the problem with this. Namely, this is all within a discussion of what Abaye and Rava both hold. However, elsewhere, Abaye collects a bunch of Sages who maintain the same thing.
[Tangent: This is characteristic of Abaye, e.g. Kiddushin 62b - 63a:
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, וְרַבִּי, וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ – אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹלָם. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. רַבִּי – דְּתַנְיָא:
See also my discussion of Shita here:
End Tangent.]
So Tosafot point out the following:
מר סבר מראה מקום הוא לו. וא"ת אביי דחשיב לקמן בפרק גט פשוט (בבא בתרא דף קסה.) רבן שמעון בן גמליאל (ורשב"א) כולהו סבירי להו מראה מקום הוא לו אמאי לא חשיב רבי בהדייהו וי"ל דלא חשיב אלא השנויין במשנה ולרשב"א נראה משום דאיכא למידחי דפליגי במסירה אי קניא בסימטא או לא
That is, much later in the masechet, Bava Batra 165a,
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – כּוּלְּהוּ סְבִירָא לְהוּ: מַרְאֶה מָקוֹם הוּא לוֹ.
Abaye said: Concerning Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Elazar, they all hold that when one gives instructions to an agent, he is merely indicating his position to him, as opposed to expressing an insistence on certain details.
and then the gemara elaborates. But, if this is Abaye who is being explained, even according to Rav Ashi, then shouldn’t Abaye have listed this instance of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi as well. Tosafot answer that perhaps Abaye is only listing there those who appear in the Mishnah. Also, maybe there is a way of not interpreting it in this way.